Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Monday, February 07, 2011

The New York Times retails a Talmud hoax - again

Updated January 4, 2017

The Hoax Begins: poignant scene from "Schindler's List" as grateful survivors of "The Holocaust" present Oskar Schindler with a brass ring containing a phony Talmud inscription.

By Michael Hoffman


We found the latest installment of this perennial (
see heremedia hoax— published on the website of the New York Times, despite the fact that it is marked "International Herald Tribune" (which is owned by the New York Times Company):

This hoax was first fueled by Steven Spielberg in his movie "Schindler’s List," where it was given credibility, both as dialogue in the movie itself and as the film’s motto, reproduced on countless posters that probably still adorn schoolrooms to this day.

As readers of our textbook, Judaism Discovered (pp. 526-528) know, this is supposed to be a quote from Talmud tractate Sanhedrin 37a, but the Talmud contains no such humanistic, universalist statement. 

The uncensored Babylonian Talmud is concerned only with the welfare of fully human beings, i.e. those described in its text as “Jews.” 

The actual Talmud text reads: “Whoever saves a single life in Israel, Scripture regards him as if he had saved the entire world” (emphasis supplied).

What is most instructive about this faking is the extent to which the corporate media are sublimely indifferent to correcting the fraud they peddle. 

This writer has sent numerous letters of correction to editors, including of the New York Times, alerting them to the truth. 

But since the falsified quotation fosters the enhanced positive image which the corporate media seek to propagate concerning Orthodox Judaism’s Talmud, they obstinately refuse to let something as insignificant as mere facts get in the way of their Talmudic PR campaign.

Another contributing factor: no influential person has stood up to offer a challenge to this hoax. We think it’s safe to say that any reasonably literate person who reads the section in Judaism Discovered debunking this deception and then performs a corroborative search in the Steinsaltz Talmud (Random House), can fail to appreciate that the phrase ascribed to the Talmud in the letter reproduced above (and a thousand other iterations published and showcased in media around the world since 1993), is a big lie, which functions as an effective advertising gimmick for the Talmud — depicting it as a warm, fuzzy book of universal love and concern for all. 

Will anything ever be done about this? Or will the macabre joke continue to roll merrily along in the media, unchallenged, as it has for nearly a quarter century, since “Schindler’s List” premiered?

What kind of comment is it on human nature, worthy of the bitterest satire of Mark Twain, that the people mindlessly believe and endlessly parrot a statement from a Hollywood movie without any form of corroboration except for publication in the fake news gazette known as the 
New York Times, and do so with the kind of insufferable self-righteousness that is the mark of this brand of "Holocaust" hype?


Michael Hoffman's research and writing are entirely reader-funded.
Buy a book or newsletter or send a donation today.

"Gold-plated brass ring with Hebrew inscription from Schindler’s List, presented to Liam Neeson as 'Oskar Schindler' (Universal, 1993) Brass ring with Hebrew inscription in the inside edge, taken from the Talmud, which translated reads 'He who saves one life, saves the whole world.' This ring was presented to Liam Neeson’s character at the end of the film by all of the grateful Jewish workers he had saved from certain death at the hands of the Nazis. 

Fashioned from gold taken from one of his worker’s teeth, it’s after Schindler receives this ring that he breaks down, remorseful that he did not sell every one of his worldly possessions to save more Jews. An important and highly symbolic piece from the most poignant moment of the film. From the personal collection of Batia Grafka, the film’s prop master...”




Kamo said...

Good thing I didn't watch this movie.

Patrick said...

"What kind of comment is it on human nature, worthy of the bitterest satire of Mark Twain, that people mindlessly believe and endlessly parrot a statement from a Hollywood movie without any form of corroboration, and do so with the kind of insufferable self-righteousness that is the mark of this brand of "Holocaust" hype"?

It is a human nature that bases their warped understanding on the deep-seated emotion of piety; that is, their heart's beliefs. A certain prophet admonishes us that our hearts are desperately wicked (Jer 17:9) Juxtapose any universalized sentiment with such visual and auditory poignancy (let's not forget John Williams' soundtrack to the film) and we have the same popular Stalinist dogma that surrounds, for instance, the Pharisaical religion of the Church "rapture", another transcendent precept of modern-day "oral-tradition" that opposes an immanence which is so vital to mature Christianity and that is suspended, among many other things, by those ole' familiar Church songs of the 30's and 40's which are so near and dear to the "rapturous religious heart".
For me, it seems that "religion" has always been caught up with a sanctimoniously defended emotion, and propoganda, whether church or state, has always sought to emulate such "religion". I guess I might find something about this in Goebbels' writing if I bothered to look? (I don't know if the modern progenitor Stalin left much behind)


Faithful are the (surgical) wounds of a friend, but the (emotional)kisses of an enemy are deceitful (Prov 27:6) Thank God for those like Hoffman who diagnose and disseminate inconvenient truths

Anonymous said...

Ernst Zundel discusses Shindler's List during an interview seen at http://vimeo.com/23314451.

Of note also is this quote of Zundel's seen at the bottom of http://www.zundelsite.org/debate/063_jam.html:

"And finally: Regarding my supposed "advocating" of censorship:

I make no apologies for saying that the semi-pornographic, historically false, sadomasochistic Spielberg film fantasy "Schindler's List" should be banned from being shown in public cinemas in schools and on television. Why? Because it offends against existing laws on the books in most civilized countries against pornography, sado-masochism and the corruption of minors by such filth.

I did not make those laws. I am, however, a strong believer in obeying laws. Some countries have better laws than others.

Some countries like the Philippines, Malaysia and others did exactly that - they banned that piece of worthless trash and Zionist propaganda. And I say: Good for them!

Dan said...

are you aware of this site which claims to be debunking talmudic criticism. this particular quote is covered here - http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/schindler.html

claiming that this quote appears in a universal sense (without 'in Israel') in the Jerusalem/Palestinian Talmud. I have not read your book, so I am not aware if you have covered both books. Is it possible that this is the case?

Michael Hoffman said...

To Dan:

Gil Student’s defense of the Talmud is lacking in integrity. He routinely quotes my critique of the Talmud while omitting my name and censoring links to my website or blog. He doesn’t seem to trust his readers with my information, only selective anonymous quotes from an unnamed Talmud detractor. Why does he fear making a reference to this writer? Is it because he is apprehensive that his readers will consult my books and penetrate his sophistry?

Your comment contains a link to Mr. Student’s site and we published your comment and the link because we have nothing to fear from Gil Student. Quite the contrary: he’s so incompetent he sometimes makes our case for us when he puts forth an explanation for an evil Talmud teaching that is more risible than the teaching itself (e.g. his defense of BT Moed Kattan 17a).

In his link, Mr. Student defends the Spielberg falsification by stating that the Jerusalem Talmud says something else. Assuming Mr. Student has represented the contents of the texts he alludes to accurately, what Mr. Student is not telling his readers (and he often depends on omission to give his impostures the appearance of credibility), is that the Jerusalem Talmud is not authoritative in Orthodox Judaism.

That’s quite an omission, don’t you agree?

In the supreme authority for Judaism as expressed by Chazal in the Talmud Bavli (in this case the Gemara of the Babylonian Talmud), the quotation is qualified to refer only to saving the souls of those believed to be of Israel.

Student employs sleight of hand by claiming the Jerusalem Talmud has a universal reference in it, with the supposition being that this reference balances (or cancels) the racism in the Babylonian Talmud and exonerates Mr. Spielberg.

There is nothing universal about the halacha of Orthodox Judaism, which is a dual law system that has a strict delineation of superior and inferior relative to Judaics and goyim, and by extension, one law for Judaics and another for goyim.

The uncensored Babylonian Talmud’s definition of whose soul is saved and what is collectively saved, accurately reflects the discriminatory racism within Judaism, which Spielberg the master deceiver concealed through fabrication.

Lesser texts that may or may not contradict the Babylonian Gemara do not alter the fact that Spielberg misrepresented the chief Talmud text of Orthodox Judaism.

Finally, what do you or Mr. Student have to say about the fact that America’s most famous and honored movie director falsified the contents of the Babylonian Talmud in his movie Schindler’s List?

The only way any apologist for Judaism can wiggle out of that dilemma would be to arbitrarily derogate the authority and status of the Talmud Bavli and elevate the authority and status of the Talmud Yerushalmi.

Dan said...

Thanks for the reply. I am recently trying to get my head around this, and rather hesitant to form any opinions without sufficient knowledge. I am also all too aware of attempts by islamophobes to take Qur'anic passages out of context, and wary of falling into the same trap.

Michael Hoffman said...

To Dan:

Concerning issues of context vis a vis Talmud quotes, scroll down to the white text inside the black box at this link:


Anonymous said...

Three Year Old Brides

Second century Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, one of Judaism’s very greatest rabbis and a creator of Kabbalah, sanctioned pedophilia—permitting molestation of baby girls even younger than three! He proclaimed,

“A proselyte who is under the age of three years and a day is permitted to marry a priest.” 1
Yebamoth 60b,
Subsequent rabbis refer to ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia as "halakah," or binding Jewish law. 2 Yebamoth 60b
Has ben Yohai, child rape advocate, been disowned by modern Jews? Hardly. Today, in ben Yohai’s hometown of Meron, Israel, tens of thousands of orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews gather annually for days and nights of singing and dancing in his memory.
References to pedophilia abound in the Talmud. They occupy considerable sections of Treatises Kethuboth and Yebamoth and are enthusiastically endorsed by the Talmud’s definitive legal work, Treatise Sanhedrin.

Unknown said...

The author of this article quotes only one source in the Talmud. But the Jerusalem Talmud omits any reference to Israel, applying this maxim as a general principle applicable to Jews and Gentiles alike. Other Rabbinic literature likewise applies this maxim as a general principle. So this wonderful moral ethic of Judaism, which elevates the value of an individual human life to an importance equal to not just the community but the whole world, is no "hoax" but a wonderful ethic that must be considered whenever a demagogue or self-righteous politician advocates sacrificing the individual to the "collective good."

Robert Heller said...

Not a Jewish scholar by any means (not even Jewish), but a question or two. I originally was looking up this saying because of studying political Islam, which claims the saying, or facsimile thereof, as their own. The Talmud obviously preceded the Koran/Hadith/Sira, so, like much of what I have studied, the saying has been "appropriated." After reading some of the interesting posts and responses here, a word of caution: "We" (all of us) are not the ultimate or final authority on any matter, theological or otherwise, no matter how deep or extensive our studies. God is. Attempting to pose or appear as such is both spiritually and intellectually deceptive. Just an observation.